Search results for 'Punishment' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Jami L. Anderson (2014). Discipline and Punishment in Light of Autism. In Selina Doran & Laura Botell (eds.), Reframing Punishment: Making Visible Bodies, Silence and De-humanisation.score: 27.0
    If one can judge a society by how it treats its prisoners, one can surely judge a society by how it treats cognitively- and learning-impaired children. In the United States children with physical and cognitive impairments are subjected to higher rates of corporal punishment than are non-disabled children. Children with disabilities make up just over 13% of the student population in the U.S. yet make up over 18% of those children who receive corporal punishment. Autistic children are among (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Attila Ataner (2006). Kant on Capital Punishment and Suicide. Kant-Studien 97 (4):452-482.score: 24.0
    From a juridical standpoint, Kant ardently upholds the state's right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the law of retribution. At the same time, from an ethical standpoint, Kant maintains a strict proscription against suicide. The author proposes that this latter position is inconsistent with and undercuts the former. However, Kant's division between external (juridical) and internal (moral) lawgiving is an obstacle to any argument against Kant's endorsement of capital punishment based on his own disapprobation of suicide. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Thom Brooks (2004). Retributivist Arguments Against Capital Punishment. Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (2):188–197.score: 24.0
    This article argues that even if we grant that murderers may deserve death in principle, retributivists should still oppose capital punishment. The reason? Our inability to know with certainty whether or not individuals possess the necessary level of desert. In large part due to advances in science, we can only be sure that no matter how well the trial is administered or how many appeals are allowed or how many years we let elapse, we will continue to execute innocent (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Katrina Sifferd (2012). Changing the Criminal Character: Nanotechnology and Criminal Punishment. In A. Santosuosso (ed.), Proceedings of the 2011 Law and Science Young Scholars Symposium. Pavia University Press.score: 24.0
    This chapter examines how advances in nanotechnology might impact criminal sentencing. While many scholars have considered the ethical implications of emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology, few have considered their potential impact on crucial institutions such as our criminal justice system. Specifically, I will discuss the implications of two types of technological advances for criminal sentencing: advanced tracking devices enabled by nanotechnology, and nano-neuroscience, including neural implants. The key justifications for criminal punishment- including incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution – apply (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Benjamin S. Yost (2011). The Irrevocability of Capital Punishment. Journal of Social Philosophy 42 (3):321-340.score: 24.0
    One of the many arguments against capital punishment is that execution is irrevocable. At its most simple, the argument has three premises. First, legal institutions should abolish penalties that do not admit correction of error, unless there are no alternative penalties. Second, irrevocable penalties are those that do not admit of correction. Third, execution is irrevocable. It follows that capital punishment should be abolished. This paper argues for the third premise. One might think that the truth of this (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Jeremy Bentham (2009). The Rationale of Punishment. Prometheus Books.score: 24.0
    Definitions and distinctions -- Classification -- Of the ends of punishment -- Cases unmeet for punishment -- Expense of punishment -- Measure of punishment -- Of the properties to be given to a lot of punishment -- Of analogy between crimes and punishment -- Of retaliation -- Popularity -- Simple afflictive punishments -- Of complex afflictive punishments -- Of restrictive punishments--territorial confinement -- Imprisonment -- Imprisonment--fees -- Imprisonment examined -- General scheme of imprisonment -- (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Dan Demetriou (2012). Justifying Punishment: The Educative Approach as Presumptive Favorite. Criminal Justice Ethics 31 (1):2-18.score: 24.0
    Abstract In The Problem of Punishment, David Boonin offers an analysis of punishment and an account of what he sees as ethically problematic about it. In this essay I make three points. First, pace Boonin's analysis, everyday examples of punishment show that it sometimes isn't harmful, but merely "discomforting." Second, intentionally discomforting offenders isn't uniquely problematic, given that we have cases of non-punitive intentional discomforture---and perhaps even harmful discomforture---that seem unobjectionable. Third, a notable fact about both non-harmful (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Thom Brooks (2003). Kant's Theory of Punishment. Utilitas 15 (02):206-.score: 24.0
    The most widespread interpretation amongst contemporary theorists of Kant's theory of punishment is that it is retributivist. On the contrary, I will argue there are very different senses in which Kant discusses punishment. He endorses retribution for moral law transgressions and consequentialist considerations for positive law violations. When these standpoints are taken into consideration, Kant's theory of punishment is more coherent and unified than previously thought. This reading uncovers a new problem in Kant's theory of punishment. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Nathan Hanna (2009). Liberalism and the General Justifiability of Punishment. Philosophical Studies 145 (3):325-349.score: 24.0
    I argue that contemporary liberal theory cannot give a general justification for the institution or practice of punishment, i.e., a justification that would hold across a broad range of reasonably realistic conditions. I examine the general justifications offered by three prominent contemporary liberal theorists and show how their justifications fail in light of the possibility of an alternative to punishment. I argue that, because of their common commitments regarding the nature of justification, these theorists have decisive reasons to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Matt Matravers (2000). Justice and Punishment: The Rationale of Coercion. Oxford University Press.score: 24.0
    This book aims to answer the question of why, and by what right, some people punish others. With a groundbreaking new theory, Matravers argues that the justification of punishment must be embedded in a larger political and moral theory. He also uses the problem of punishment to undermine contemporary accounts of justice.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Mark Tunick (2013). Privacy and Punishment. Social Theory and Practice 39 (4):643-668.score: 24.0
    Philosophers have focused on why privacy is of value to innocent people with nothing to hide. I argue that for people who do have something to hide, such as a past crime, or bad behavior in a public place, informational privacy can be important for avoiding undeserved or disproportionate non-legal punishment. Against the objection that one cannot expect privacy in public facts, I argue that I might have a legitimate privacy interest in public facts that are not readily accessible, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Benjamin Yost (2011). Responsibility and Revision: A Levinasian Argument for the Abolition of Capital Punishment. Continental Philosophy Review 44 (1):41-64.score: 24.0
    Most readers believe that it is difficult, verging on the impossible, to extract concrete prescriptions from the ethics of Emmanuel Levinas. Although this view is largely correct, Levinas’ philosophy can, with some assistance, generate specific duties on the part of legal actors. In this paper, I argue that the fundamental premises of Levinas’ theory of justice can be used to construct a prohibition against capital punishment. After analyzing Levinas’ concepts of justice, responsibility, and interruption, I turn toward his scattered (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Christian Coons & Noah Levin (2011). The Dead Donor Rule, Voluntary Active Euthanasia, and Capital Punishment. Bioethics 25 (5):236-243.score: 24.0
    We argue that the dead donor rule, which states that multiple vital organs should only be taken from dead patients, is justified neither in principle nor in practice. We use a thought experiment and a guiding assumption in the literature about the justification of moral principles to undermine the theoretical justification for the rule. We then offer two real world analogues to this thought experiment, voluntary active euthanasia and capital punishment, and argue that the moral permissibility of terminating any (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Chandra Sekhar Sripada (2005). Punishment and the Strategic Structure of Moral Systems. Biology and Philosophy 20 (4):767–789.score: 24.0
    The problem of moral compliance is the problem of explaining how moral norms are sustained over extented stretches of time despite the existence of selfish evolutionary incentives that favor their violation. There are, broadly speaking, two kinds of solutions that have been offered to the problem of moral compliance, the reciprocity-based account and the punishment-based account. In this paper, I argue that though the reciprocity-based account has been widely endorsed by evolutionary theorists, the account is in fact deeply implausible. (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Patrick Lenta & Douglas Farland (2008). Desert, Justice and Capital Punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (3):273-290.score: 24.0
    Our purpose in this paper is to consider a procedural objection to the death penalty. According to this objection, even if the death penalty is deemed, substantively speaking, a morally acceptable punishment for at least some murderers, since only a small proportion of those guilty of aggravated murder are sentenced to death and executed, while the majority of murderers escape capital punishment as a result of arbitrariness and discrimination, capital punishment should be abolished. Our targets in this (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Christopher Bennett (2008). The Apology Ritual: A Philosophical Theory of Punishment. Cambridge University Press.score: 24.0
    Christopher Bennett presents a theory of punishment grounded in the practice of apology, and in particular in reactions such as feeling sorry and making amends. He argues that offenders have a 'right to be punished' - that it is part of taking an offender seriously as a member of a normatively demanding relationship (such as friendship or collegiality or citizenship) that she is subject to retributive attitudes when she violates the demands of that relationship. However, while he claims that (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Richard Dagger (2008). Punishment as Fair Play. Res Publica 14 (4):259-275.score: 24.0
    This article defends the fair-play theory of legal punishment against three objections. The first, the irrelevance objection , is the long-standing complaint that fair play fails to capture what it is about crimes that makes criminals deserving of punishment; the others are the recently raised false-equivalence and lacks-integration objections. In response, I sketch an account of fair-play theory that is grounded in a conception of the political order as a meta- cooperative practice—a conception that falls somewhere between contractual (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Joseph B. R. Gaie (2004). The Ethics of Medical Involvement in Capital Punishment: A Philosophical Discussion. Kluwer Academic.score: 24.0
    This book examines the extremely important issue of the consistency of medical involvement in ending lives in medicine, law and war. It uses philosophical theory to show why medical doctors may be involved at different stages of the capital punishment process. The author uses the theories of Emmanuel Kant and John S. Mill, combined with Gerwith's principle of generic consistency, to concretize ethics in capital punishment practice. This book does not discuss the moral justification of capital punishment, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Jane Johnson (2008). Revisiting Kantian Retributivism to Construct a Justification of Punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (3):291-307.score: 24.0
    The standard view of Kant’s retributivism, as well as its more recent reworking in the ‘limited’ or ‘partial’ retributivist reading are, it is argued here, inadequate accounts of Kant on punishment. In the case of the former, the view is too limited and superficial, and in the latter it is simply inaccurate as an interpretation of Kant. Instead, this paper argues that a more sophisticated and accurate rendering of Kant on punishment can be obtained by looking to his (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. James Q. Whitman (2003). Harsh Justice: Criminal Punishment and the Widening Divide Between America and Europe. Oxford University Press.score: 24.0
    Why is American punishment so cruel? While in continental Europe great efforts are made to guarantee that prisoners are treated humanely, in America sentences have gotten longer and rehabilitation programs have fallen by the wayside. Western Europe attempts to prepare its criminals for life after prison, whereas many American prisons today leave their inhabitants reduced and debased. In the last quarter of a century, Europe has worked to ensure that the baser human inclination toward vengeance is not reflected by (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Benjamin Vilhauer (2013). Persons, Punishment, and Free Will Skepticism. Philosophical Studies 162 (2):143-163.score: 24.0
    The purpose of this paper is to provide a justification of punishment which can be endorsed by free will skeptics, and which can also be defended against the "using persons as mere means" objection. Free will skeptics must reject retributivism, that is, the view that punishment is just because criminals deserve to suffer based on their actions. Retributivists often claim that theirs is the only justification on which punishment is constrained by desert, and suppose that non-retributive justifications (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Matt K. Stichter (2010). Rescuing Fair-Play as a Justification for Punishment. Res Publica 16 (1):73-81.score: 24.0
    The debate over whether ‘fair-play’ can serve as a justification for legal punishment has recently resumed with an exchange between Richard Dagger and Antony Duff. According to the fair-play theorist, criminals deserve punishment for breaking the law because in so doing the criminal upsets a fair distribution of benefits and burdens, and punishment rectifies this unfairness. Critics frequently level two charges against this idea. The first is that it often gives the wrong explanation of what makes crime (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Thom Brooks (2005). Kantian Punishment and Retributivism: A Reply to Clark. Ratio 18 (2):237–245.score: 24.0
    In this journal, Michael Clark defends a "A Non-Retributive Kantian Approach to Punishment". I argue that both Kant's and Rawls's theories of punishment are retributivist to some extent. It may then be slightly misleading to say that by following the views of Kant and Rawls, in particular, as Clark does, we can develop a nonretributivist theory of punishment. This matter is further complicated by the fact Clark nowhere addresses Rawls's views on punishment: Rawls endorses a mixed (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Kevin Magill (1998). The Idea of a Justification for Punishment. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 1 (1):86-101.score: 24.0
    The argument between retributivists and consequentialists about what morally justifies the punishment of offenders is incoherent. If we were to discover that all of the contending justifications were mistaken, there is no realistic prospect that this would lead us to abandon legal punishment. Justification of words, beliefs and deeds, can only be intelligible on the assumption that if one's justification were found to be invalid and there were no alternative justification, one would be prepared to stop saying, believing (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Kimberley Brownlee (2008). Justifying Punishment: A Response to Douglas Husak. [REVIEW] Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (2):123-129.score: 24.0
    In ‘Why Criminal Law: A Question of Content?’, Douglas Husak argues that an analysis of the justifiability of the criminal law depends upon an analysis of the justifiability of state punishment. According to Husak, an adequate justification of state punishment both must show why the state is permitted to infringe valuable rights such as the right not to be punished and must respond to two distinct groups of persons who may demand a justification for the imposition of (...), namely, individuals subjected to punishment and the society asked to support the institution of punishment. In this discussion, I analyse Husak’s account of the right not to be punished with an eye to showing that the parameters of that right do not extend to the cases that would make it controversial. I also consider two other distinct groups of persons who have equal standing to alleged offenders and society to demand justification for the imposition of state punishment, namely, direct victims of crimes and criminal justice officials. (shrink)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Michael Cholbi (2010). Compulsory Victim Restitution is Punishment: A Reply to Boonin. Public Reason 2 (1):85-93.score: 24.0
    David Boonin has recently argued that although no existing theory of legal punishment provides adequate moral justification for the practice of punishing criminal wrongdoing, compulsory victim restitution (CVR) is a morally justified response to such wrongdoing. Here I argue that Boonin’s thesis is false because CVR is a form of punishment. I first support this claim with an argument that Boonin’s denial that CVR is a form of punishment requires a groundless distinction between a state’s response to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Wesley Cragg (1992). The Practice of Punishment: Towards a Theory of Restorative Justice. Routledge.score: 24.0
    In the latter half of the twentieth century, there has been a sharp decline in confidence in sentencing principles, due to a questioning of the efficacy of punishment. It has been very difficult to develop consistent, fair, and humane criteria for evaluating legislative, judicial and correctional advancements. The Practice of Punishment offers a comprehensive study of punishment that identifies the principles of sentencing and corrections on which modern correctional systems should be built. The theory of punishment (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Anthony Ellis (2010). War Crimes, Punishment and the Burden of Proof. Res Publica 16 (2):181-196.score: 24.0
    This paper argues that there is a default presumption that punishment has some deterrent effect, and that the burden of proof is upon those who allege that the costs of any particular penal system are insufficient to offset its deterrent benefits. This burden of proof transmits to the discussion of international law, with the conclusion that it is those who oppose international jurisdiction, rather than their opponents, who must prove their position. This they have so far failed to do.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Greg Roebuck & David Wood (2011). A Retributive Argument Against Punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (1):73-86.score: 24.0
    This paper proposes a retributive argument against punishment, where punishment is understood as going beyond condemnation or censure, and requiring hard treatment. The argument sets out to show that punishment cannot be justified. The argument does not target any particular attempts to justify punishment, retributive or otherwise. Clearly, however, if it succeeds, all such attempts fail. No argument for punishment is immune from the argument against punishment proposed here. The argument does not purport to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Bill Wringe (2010). War Crimes and Expressive Theories of Punishment: Communication or Denunciation? Res Publica 16 (2):119-133.score: 24.0
    In a paper published in 2006, I argued that the best way of defending something like our current practices of punishing war criminals would be to base the justification of this practice on an expressive theory of punishment. I considered two forms that such a justification could take—a ‘denunciatory’ account, on which the purpose of punishment is supposed to communicate a commitment to certain kinds of standard to individuals other than the criminal and a ‘communicative’ account, on which (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Thom Brooks (2008). Shame on You, Shame on Me? Nussbaum on Shame Punishment. Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (4):322-334.score: 24.0
    abstract Shame punishments have become an increasingly popular alternative to traditional punishments, often taking the form of convicted criminals holding signs or sweeping streets with a toothbrush. In her Hiding from Humanity, Martha Nussbaum argues against the use of shame punishments because they contribute to an offender's loss of dignity. However, these concerns are shared already by the courts which also have concerns about the possibility that shaming might damage an offender's dignity. This situation has not led the courts to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Nathan Hanna (2012). It's Only Natural: Legal Punishment and the Natural Right to Punish. Social Theory and Practice 38 (4):598-616.score: 24.0
    Some philosophers defend legal punishment by appealing to a natural right to punish wrongdoers, a right people would have in a state of nature. Many of these philosophers argue that legal punishment can be justified by transferring this right to the state. I’ll argue that such a right may not be transferrable to the state because such a right may not survive the transition out of anarchy. A compelling reason for the natural right claim – that in a (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Zachary Hoskins (2011). ''Fair Play, Political Obligation, and Punishment''. Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (1):53-71.score: 24.0
    This paper attempts to establish that, and explain why, the practice of punishing offenders is in principle morally permissible. My account is a nonstandard version of the fair play view, according to which punishment's permissibility derives from reciprocal obligations shared by members of a political community, understood as a mutually beneficial, cooperative venture. Most fair play views portray punishment as an appropriate means of removing the unfair advantage an offender gains relative to law-abiding members of the community. Such (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Thaddeus Metz (2009). Censure Theory Still Best Accounts for Punishment of the Guilty: Reply to Montague. Philosophia 37 (1):113-23.score: 24.0
    In an article previously published in this journal, Phillip Montague critically surveys and rejects a handful of contemporary attempts to explain why state punishment is morally justified. Among those targeted is one of my defences of the censure theory of punishment, according to which state punishment is justified because the political community has a duty to express disapproval of those guilty of injustice. My defence of censure theory supposes, per argumentum, that there is always some defeasible moral (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. G. Scarre (2003). Corporal Punishment. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 6 (3):295-316.score: 24.0
    This paper examines the reasons why corporal punishment in the judicial sphere has fallen into moral disfavour in recent decades. Standard objections to the practice, both practical and ethical, are considered and found to be inconclusive. It is argued that corporal punishment is not inevitably more cruel or demeaning than conventionally preferred punitive methods and that consideration should be given to its limited experimental reintroduction.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. J. D. Shepherd (2012). A Human Right Not to Be Punished? Punishment as Derogation of Rights. Criminal Law and Philosophy 6 (1):31-45.score: 24.0
    In this essay, I apply international human rights theory to the domestic discussion of criminalization. The essay takes as its starting point the “right not to be punished” that Douglas Husak posited in his recent book Overcriminalization . By reviewing international human rights norms, I take up Husak’s challenge to imbue this right with further normative content. This process reveals additional relationships between the criminal law and human rights theory, and I discuss one analogy: the derogation by states of an (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Heather J. Gert, Linda Radzik & and Michael Hand (2004). Hampton on the Expressive Power of Punishment. Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (1):79–90.score: 24.0
    In her later writings Jean Hampton develops an expressive theory of punishment she takes to be retributivist. Unlike Feinberg, Hampton claims wrongdoings as well as punishments are expressive. Wrongdoings assert that the victim is less valuable than victimizer. On her view we are obligated to punish because we are obligated to respond to this false assertion. Punishment expresses the moral truth that victim and wrongdoer are equally valuable. We argue that Hampton's argument would work only if she held (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Adam Kolber (2012). Unintentional Punishment. Legal Theory 18 (1):1-29.score: 24.0
    Criminal law theorists overwhelmingly agree that for some conduct to constitute punishment, it must be imposed intentionally. Some retributivists have argued that because punishment consists only of intentional inflictions, theories of punishment can ignore the merely foreseen hardships of prison, such as the mental and emotional distress inmates experience. Though such distress is foreseen, it is not intended, and so it is technically not punishment. In this essay, I explain why theories of punishment must pay (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Brian Rosebury (2009). Private Revenge and its Relation to Punishment. Utilitas 21 (1):1-21.score: 24.0
    In contrast to the vast literature on retributive theories of punishment, discussions of private revenge are rare in moral philosophy. This paper reviews some examples, from both classical and recent writers, finding uncertainty and equivocation over the ethical significance of acts of revenge, and in particular over their possible resemblances, in motive, purpose or justification, to acts of lawful punishment. A key problem for the coherence of our ethical conception of revenge is the consideration that certain acts of (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Brandon Warmke (2013). Two Arguments Against the Punishment-Forbearance Account of Forgiveness. Philosophical Studies 165 (3):915-920.score: 24.0
    One account of forgiveness claims that to forgive is to forbear punishment. Call this the Punishment-Forbearance Account of forgiveness. In this paper I argue that forbearing punishment is neither necessary nor sufficient for forgiveness.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Paulo D. Barrozo (2007). Punishing Cruelly: Punishment, Cruelty, and Mercy. [REVIEW] Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (1):67-84.score: 24.0
    What is cruelty? How and why does it matter? What do the legal rejection of cruelty and the requirements of mercy entail? This essay asks these questions of Lucius Seneca, who first articulated an agent-based conception of cruelty in the context of punishment. The hypothesis is submitted that the answers to these questions offered in Seneca's De clementia constitute one of the turning points in the evolution of practical reason in law. I conclude, however, by arguing that even the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. René Foqué (2008). Criminal Justice in a Democracy: Towards a Relational Conception of Criminal Law and Punishment. [REVIEW] Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (3):207-227.score: 24.0
    This article starts from the observation that in classical Athens the discovery of democracy as a normative model of politics has been from the beginning not only a political and a legal but at the same time a philosophical enterprise. Reflections on the concept of criminal law and on the meaning of punishment can greatly benefit from reflections on Athenian democracy as a germ for our contemporary debate on criminal justice in a democracy. Three main characteristics of the Athenian (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Antony Duff (2008). The Incompleteness of 'Punishment as Fair Play': A Response to Dagger. Res Publica 14 (4):277-281.score: 24.0
    Richard Dagger (in this issue) provides perhaps the most persuasive version of a ‘fair play’ theory of criminal punishment, grounded in an attractive liberal republican political theory. But, I argue, his version of the theory still faces serious objections: that its explanation of why some central mala in se are properly criminalised is still distorting, despite his appeal to the burdens of ‘general compliance’; and that it cannot adequately explain (as it should explain) the differential seriousness and wrongfulness of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Thaddeus Metz (2000). Censure Theory and Intuitions About Punishment. Law and Philosophy 19 (4):491-512.score: 24.0
    Many philosophers and laypeople have the following two intuitions about legal punishment: the state has a pro tanto moral reason to punish all those guilty of breaking a just law and to do so in proportion to their guilt. Accepting that there can be overriding considerations not to punish all the guilty in proportion to their guilt, many philosophers still consider it a strike against any theory if it does not imply that there is always a supportive moral reason (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Alan Brudner (2009). Punishment and Freedom: A Liberal Theory of Penal Justice. Oxford University Press.score: 24.0
    Punishment -- Culpable mind -- Culpable action -- Responsibility for harm -- Liability for public welfare offences -- Justification -- Excuse -- Detention after acquittal -- The unity of the penal law.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Michael Davis (2010). What Punishment for the Murder of 10,000? Res Publica 16 (2):101-118.score: 24.0
    Those who commit crime on a grand scale, numbering their victims in the thousands, seem to pose a special problem both for consequentialist and for non-consequentialist theories of punishment, a problem the International Criminal Court makes practical. This paper argues that at least one non-consequentialist theory of punishment, the fairness theory, can provide a justification of punishment for great crimes. It does so by dividing the question into two parts, the one of proportion which it answers directly, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Peter Königs (2013). The Expressivist Account of Punishment, Retribution, and the Emotions. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (5):1029-1047.score: 24.0
    This paper provides a discussion of the role that emotions may play in the justification of punishment. On the expressivist account of punishment, punishment has the purpose of expressing appropriate emotional reactions to wrongdoing, such as indignation, resentment or guilt. I will argue that this expressivist approach fails as these emotions can be expressed other than through the infliction of punishment. Another argument for hard treatment put forward by expressivists states that punitive sanctions are necessary in (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Neil Levy (forthcoming). Zimmerman's The Immorality of Punishment: A Critical Essay. [REVIEW] Criminal Law and Philosophy:1-10.score: 24.0
    In “The Immorality of Punishment”, Michael Zimmerman attempts to show that punishment is morally unjustified and therefore wrong. In this response, I focus on two main questions. First, I examine whether Zimmerman’s empirical claims—concerning our inability to identify wrongdoers who satisfy conditions on blameworthiness and who might be reformed through punishment, and the comparative efficacy of punitive and non-punitive responses to crime—stand up to scrutiny. Second, I argue that his crucial argument from luck depends on claims about (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Matt Matravers (2013). Political Neutrality and Punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy 7 (2):217-230.score: 24.0
    This paper is concerned with the tensions that arise when one juxtaposes one important liberal understanding of the nature and use of state power in circumstances of pluralism and (broadly) retributive accounts of punishment. The argument is that there are aspects of the liberal theory that seem to be in tension with aspects of retributive punishment, and that these tensions are difficult to avoid because of the attractiveness of precisely those features of each account. However, a proper understanding (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Alejandro Chehtman (2010). The Philosophical Foundations of Extraterritorial Punishment. Oxford University Press.score: 24.0
    This book provides the first full account, explanation, and critique of extraterritorial punishment in international law.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000